'People often say that they can’t help with the anti-gay bullying acts because it says right there in Leviticus, it says right there in Timothy, it says right there in Romans, that being gay is wrong,' Mr Savage said.

'We can learn to ignore the bullsh*t in the Bible and what it says about gay people.'

He compared dogmatic acceptance of anti-gay teachings equivalent to adhering to verses about slavery and eating shellfish, two issues that have been reinterpreted in modern day.

My question is whether the school engages in viewpoint discrimination. Does it bring in other speakers who present other interpretations of the Bible? I doubt it.

145 comments:

"My question is whether the school engages in viewpoint discrimination. Does it bring in other speakers who present other interpretations of the Bible? I doubt it. "

I doubt it too, the modern model is to promote only an 'approved' narrative. For example, at many schools the idea that humans are causing global warming and the resultant horrors is commonplace, with no balancing alter point of view presented.

Liberals will always tell you what they are incapable of, which is why the constant preach about tolerance, civility, and open-mindedness.

First, I obviously agree with the underlying message that Christian bigots should stop hiding behind the fables about magical sky beard fairy man and just own their prejudice or stop engaging in it.

That being said, it would probably be better to do an anti-bullying workshop without attacking dumb Christian superstitions because that tends to make people upset. (I have no idea what the first amendment requires or allows related to this so I'm not speaking to the legal concerns.)

Also, schools have been known to bring in anti-gay Christian bigots to spout their hatred to students, although this tends to (rightly) bring about a lot of condemnation since anti-gay bigotry is wrong, even if you say you are doing it for zombie jesus.

"Also, schools have been known to bring in anti-gay Christian bigots to spout their hatred to students, although this tends to (rightly) bring about a lot of condemnation since anti-gay bigotry is wrong, even if you say you are doing it for zombie jesus."

Is there anything in the Bible regarding gay bowel syndrome, Andy?

I didn't think so.

Maybe you can tell all of us what our view on this subject should sound like.

Legally, what responsibility does a school have to control outside speakers brought in to speak to the student body?

I'm assuming that when the school chooses a speaker, it's doing so because it is hoping to send a message to the students. The school undoubtedly wanted to send an anti-bullying message, which is reasonably connected to the educational mission of the school, and as far as I know not a First Amendment violation.

But clearly a public school official could not gather an assembly of students together and give a speech denigrating one religion and promoting another.

So what happens when the school brings in someone to give an educationally-related message, but the speaker brings in his/her own message, which would not be permitted under the First Amendment for the school itself to make? Are the speaker's words protected, because of the speaker's First Amendment rights? Or is the school in trouble for this, because the speaker implicitly speaks for the school and the school implicitly supports his message even if the content was unexpected on the part of the school officials?

I keep waiting for an example of a pre-modern, non-Christian culture that put same-sex marriage on par with heterosexual marriage.Should be easy to find, since opposition to same sex marriage is only a Christian thing.

Personally, my priority list is giving my body to science/organ donation or being cremated. If I ever write a will, it's going to say that my closest relatives can do with my body whatever they want since I won't be around and I think those post-death rituals are about comforting the living anyway.

I did one of those group introductory exercises one time where we talked about what animal we would like to be resurrected as if such a thing existed, but I can't remember what my answer was.

Andy R. wrote:"If there was an issue about Muslim bullying in America, I suspect Savage might be "brave" enough to talk about it."Really? What makes you think so? Calling someone "pansy-ass" because they walk away from your verbal abuse is an act of bullying, and bullies only pick on people that can't or won't hit back.

Dan Savage works at school-age bullying. He obviously crossed the hypocrisy-line here.

Yeah, I totally agree with this. I think there is a respectful way to talk about religious beliefs and bullying in ways that would be productive for a school-aged audience, and Savage clearly wasn't doing it. I would never mock religion the way I do here if I were talking with children. His name calling was totally out of line.

Savage has spent plenty of time going after people who can and do hit back. Just because he crossed the line by transferring some of the rhetoric and tactics he uses against adults into a setting with students doesn't mean that is his normal approach.

Yeah, I totally agree with this. I think there is a respectful way to talk about religious beliefs and bullying in ways that would be productive for a school-aged audience, and Savage clearly wasn't doing it. I would never mock religion the way I do here if I were talking with children. His name calling was totally out of line.

OK, I'll amend my "nasty fag" comment. Andy's not a nasty fag, but he plays one on Althouse.

It's all religion, you know. That is, a set of belief systems. You can believe your personal religion is more accurate than others, and scoff at it, since it seems so unlikely.

Another way of looking at religion is the pros and cons. Mormons, for instance, seem to have a good thing going. They don't commit a lot of crime, they live a long time, and they take care of each other.

Furthermore, they have an easier time facing death, don't have the "Hell" of standard Christian religion, but everyone gets something when they die. Seems like a pretty good thing, if you can believe in it.

I'd rather students spent their time studying algebra or chemistry or art instead of listening to people pontificate about bullying or Christian moral values. Maybe it's just me.

No, it's not you; I see your point and agree.

The problem is that public schools are indoctrination centers these days, rather than places where kids, as Palladian notes, learn necessary stuff. So another take on an issue is better than straight (no pun) propaganda.

My answer to Hatman was in regard to his attitude that only his POV on the subject should be allowed.

My answer to Hatman was in regard to his attitude that only his POV on the subject should be allowed.

It's rare to see people stand up and advocate that a pro-bullying message should be included in our schools alongside the anti-bullying one.

If we ignore the Christian aspect of things, lots of schools have workshops and assemblies geared toward getting kids not to bully each other, including anti-gay bullying. There is no mention of religion. Is there some other point of view that should be included?

Is your point that Ricky Santorum is a child or that frothy can't hit back?

It was a sleazy, cowardly thing to do.

Like him or not (and I don't), he has a right to be heard like Savage, but Savage apparently thinks Santorum's arguments are better, so he wanted to shout him down on the Internet by his cute little stunt.

This is why I say the homosexual agenda is the next decade's global warming. The bigger it gets, the more the truth comes out, and then people see it for what it is.

The problem is that public schools are indoctrination centers these days, rather than places where kids, as Palladian notes, learn necessary stuff. So another take on an issue is better than straight (no pun) propaganda.

I wouldn't object to a mandatory self-defense course in schools. That was always my solution to bullying.

The problem is that public schools are indoctrination centers these days, rather than places where kids, as Palladian notes, learn necessary stuff. So another take on an issue is better than straight (no pun) propaganda.

I wouldn't object to a mandatory self-defense course in schools. That was always my solution to bullying.

You might have a problem in some areas with certain groups (growing up outside Philadelphia, I knew a few Quakers), but, yeah, probably better than throwing a medicine ball around in gym.

Well, this is a continuation of the lefties penchant for using anti-gay slurs against people that disagree with them. I'm still to figure out why the gay community thinks that their issues fall in the domain of the "progressives" and not in general domaign of human dignity and personal freedom in general, you know - the right to "persuit of happiness" carried out individually and not by rota or dictate from the government, like the "progressives" would want as to do.

This is why I say the homosexual agenda is the next decade's global warming. The bigger it gets, the more the truth comes out, and then people see it for what it is.

As a homosexual, I still wish someone would tell me what my agenda is. I've heard about it for years, but no one has ever let me in on the dark secret

OK, I'll put it this way: the Left wants to destroy the family and religion and it's using the guise of homosexual rights, among other things, to help do it.

Savage and his friends are part of that.

Anytime you can't beat the other guy's argument, declare it politically incorrect and charge him with hate speech.

Since when do bullies have an "argument"?

Referring to Hatman's use of the term to attempt to repress any expression of opposition to homosexual practices.

I was bullied plenty as a kid, so I give you your point as far getting pushed around goes, but we're talking about the use of the term bullying as a catchphrase in the same sense people like Al Sharpton talk about racial code words.

This is the cultural revanchism I was talking about in the other thread. The realization that uppity women and minorities and gays and atheists are destroying the ideal of 1950's white American religious nuclear families is quite upsetting to some people.

It's certainly not all conservatives, but there is a healthy group of people who see America changing in ways that they don't like, and Republican politicians realize this is one of their voting blocs.

It's certainly not all conservatives, but there is a healthy group of people who see America changing in ways that they don't like, and Republican politicians realize this is one of their voting blocs.

the walkout looked pre-planned. the very moment savage mentioned the bible a group stood up and walked out en masse. they never heard what he had to say about it.savage's point is that a couple of lines from the book are used by 'bible believers' to justify discrimination against gay folks, while those same 'believers' ignore much of the rest of the book's admonitions. he correctly pointed out that, as soon as someone tries to push back against the 'believers', they flip out...as evidenced by the walk-out and the hysterical reaction in the media over savage's alleged 'bigotry'. his mistake was the name-calling (that he did behind the backs of those who walked out) but, otherwise, the audience was fully in support of his message. savage could refine his speech a bit but i suspect that, regardless of how he said what he had to say,this event would still have been blown way out of proportion by the 'war on religion/christians are victims' crowd.

el polacko, regardless of what the Li'l Bible Thumpers did, Savage was an adult, speaking to a group of young students about bullying.

His stupid reaction to the walkout, whether it was a stunt or not, was not a simple mistake, it completely destroyed his entire reason for being there.

He could have used the moment to emphasis a message of dialog and tolerance of differences of opinion. Instead, he reacted combatively and stupidly, and simply turned what could have been a moment of consensus (being against bullying is a position with both humanist and scriptural support) into another point of division.

It was a total failure, and Savage shouldn't be invited to speak on the subject any more.

This is the cultural revanchism I was talking about in the other thread. The realization that uppity women and minorities and gays and atheists are destroying the ideal of 1950's white American religious nuclear families is quite upsetting to some people.

Those nuclear families, religious or otherwise (although most of them have been religious), have been the building block of society for about 5000 years, and probably a lot more - and women and minorities have been their biggest supporters.

Or does Hatman think black people going into the fourth or fifth generation on food stamps and welfare is a swell thing?

Obviously Hatman thinks the idea of Big Brother replacing what's worked all that time is a good one.

The history of the last 100 years or so would tend to indicate otherwise.

He wasn't as mean and snarly as the story made him seem. But, he does have an underdeveloped understanding of Christianity and the Bible. I am also wondering about his assumption that everyone who beats up a gay person or bullies a gay person is a Christian. I seriously doubt he's ever had his ass kicked by a real Christian. I even doubt he's ever had his ass kicked by someone who pretends to be a Christian.

Is Savage defining bullying in the traditional sense; that is, intentional infliction of physical harm, or targeted social and verbal cruelty? Or is he thinking that any sort of disagreement or disapproval of homosexuality will constitute bullying? Because if it's the traditional definition involving cruel and vicious sadistic tormenting, then I'm calling total bullshit on his assertion that "people" (presumably a goodly number of them) "often" say they can't help with anti-gay bullying acts due to biblical injunctions against homosexual acts. So, large numbers of people proclaim that they can't speak out against deliberate violence and cruelty--due to their Christian beliefs that the people being attacked are guilty of a sin? Savage must have had the bad luck to only meet those Christians who follow the Jesus from the Lost Gospel of Lucifer; you know---the Jesus who urged the crowd to go ahead and stone away, provided the victim was a sinner.

And that sorry excuse for a human being has no business speaking to kids that way. Such appalling language and disrespect

I do agree that he is probably the best example of leftist hypocrisy that we've seen come down the pike. And I'll be sitting in on the next anti-bullying scam that comes to my kid's school. They don't go there to be bullied, and I'm glad to see some decided not to take it, not to be held hostage by the PC police.

There is a reason why principles are not taught, and science has fallen from favor to be replaced by philosophy (analogous to faith). Hopefully, people will recognize a reasonable compromise between their desires and reality.

Not just that: Keeping kashrut and eating halal are both, chez harrogate, offenses against "common sense." So, I'd think, would be practicing vegetarianism or veganism on religious grounds, as most Buddhists and many Hindus do.

And Savage mentions gay discrimination in the various parts of the "Bible" and you seem to agree, but imply its a Christian thing, but per Savage's words it includes Jews too ... guess that dumps the 3rd book of the Jewish Pentateuch, eh?

No need to answer, the questions are rhetorical ... your number is already well known.

Funny, in Speech 101 they taught us that the goal of a well crafted persuasive speech was to persuade, not insult and piss off your audience to the point they walk out. He accomplished the exact opposite of what he set out to do.

askewhatguy wrote:Um, because Democratic politicians aren't upset about the gains being made by women and minorities and gays and atheists.

You mean by minorities like Clarence Thomas, women like Sarah Palin, gays like the Log Cabin Republicans, atheists like the late Christopher Hitchens? Democrats have shown themselves to be very upset-able when members of groups they consider their vassals wander off the manor.

"The realization that uppity women and minorities and gays and atheists are destroying the ideal of 1950's white American religious nuclear families is quite upsetting to some people."

-- Makes you wonder why it is primarily the rich and white upper classes (who, p.s., trend Democrat) are the ones who are most pursuing nuclear families while it is the poor and non-white middle and lower classes who are unable to hold marriages together and growing up in single parent homes.

It's almost like you haven't got a real clue what's going on and are just spouting catch phrases you learned in last week's two-minute hate.

On the upside, this wasn't a speech that ended with people who disliked it standing in front of the monitors with their back turned or pounding on the walls and screaming to drown the speaker out or glitter bombing the speaker. So, hey, that's progress.

I was talking about the Christian god, which may or may not be used interchangeably with Jesus, depending on your beliefs. Did Moses say anything about gay people?

And Savage mentions gay discrimination in the various parts of the "Bible" and you seem to agree, but imply its a Christian thing, but per Savage's words it includes Jews too ... guess that dumps the 3rd book of the Jewish Pentateuch, eh?

I'm not saying anti-gay bigotry is exclusively a Christian thing. I'm saying that the religiously motivated anti-gay bigotry in America is almost exclusively a Christian thing, because of the status and numbers of Christians in America as compared to other religions. When I was in Israel, I did some pro-gay activism directed at the Jewish community there.

I don't know that you mean by "dumps" in your last quoted sentence. Are you asking if I think the old testament is a book of old fables and superstitions and that people shouldn't use it as a basis for their bigotry? I think the answer to that question is yes. If you meant something else, let me know.

I think people are being stupid bigots when they use the fairy tales in the bible to justify their bigotry and pretend those books were written by God and not humans. Some people call me a bigot for believing that.

'We appreciate the level of thoughtfulness and deliberation regarding Dan Savage’s keynote address,' the NSPA wrote to Fox News.

--> This is what passes for thoughtfulness and deliberation? Good God, no wonder America is getting dumber.

Also, why does the author assume everyone who walked out was Christian? Isn't it possible some of them just thought he was being a bigoted a-hole, and were not Christian? Did they verify everyone who walked out -was- Christian?

At the risk of being bullied by the professor (using dead tired analogies) Savage is trowing the baby out with the bathwater.

The answer to the problem he seeks to solve is in the new testament.. if he spent time reading it instead of bulling the bullies he would see that... I was going to say that 'an eye for an eye leaves everybody blind' but that would make the professor throw up.

In a comment above, I implied that Obama had eaten dog. The evidence does not show that. He claims only to have been "introduced" to dog meat, and he pronounced it "tough". That conclusion could indicate that he merely chewed it, or even only tested it with culinary implements. In case I suggested, erroneously, that Obama ate dog, I apologize to anyone who might be appalled by such an act and also appalled by an erroneous accusation of such an act. I invite anyone who is not offended by my (perhaps erroneous) insinuation to just stuff it, since I don't feel any actual remorse.

I think people are being stupid bigots when they use the fairy tales in the bible to justify their bigotry and pretend those books were written by God and not humans. Some people call me a bigot for believing that.

No, people call you a bigot because you use your dull, broad, cheap-bristled brush to paint your derisive shit all over the faces of anyone who holds any religious belief whatsoever, regardless of their opinion about homosexuality...positive, negative or neutral. You taunt people for having any religious belief at all, and mock the entirety of (generally Christian) religious belief.

That's what makes you a bigot, and a total asshole to boot.

What you say you're doing, refuting and/or mocking specific instances of religion-based anti-gay speech, is what I do. What you do is mockingly trash religious people. There's a difference; it's the difference between dissent and bigotry.

Oh, really? You don't know much about Christianity, either. Now there is a have "Zombie Jesus" ... you want to explain that one?

Funny how your deride other people's beliefs, Christian, Jewish, or whatever ... as if they have no right to have them.

Mostly you seem to whack at Christians. In Vegas that'd be called a "tell."

Curious questions: Is there anyone of your acquaintances that you don't tell that you are gay ... even if they don't ask, and/or don't care one way or another? Is this some kind of supervening identity for you?

Andy, you need to up your game. The religious laws that appear in the OT are found in Leviticus, the bit of interest to this discussion is Leviticus 18:22 "Thou shalt not lie with mankind, as with womankind: it is abomination."Leviticus is attributed to Moses (by tradition).Also you wrote:"Savage has spent plenty of time going after people who can and do hit back."I honestly don't think so. Can you give an example?A short look at Savage's bio shows a lot of bullying behavior. Google-bombing Santorum's name with an obscenity? If someone you knew did that to someone in an attempt to humiliate them, wouldn't that be bullying?

People are ignorant of basic Christian tenets. Christians are liberated from the Law. See Galatians and Hebrews.

In Corinthians 1, Paul lays out his case for homosexuality as a sin, stating that it follows from idolatry. Yes, it's still a sin per the New Testament Quoating Leviticus and lumping homosexuality in with the ban of shellfish is a stupid and misleading argument. And Paul doesn't make homosexuality the #1 super sin. he lumps it in with the other "sins of the flesh," which are of a lower order than spiritual sins per Catholic doctrine.

I am struck by the rage and arrogance of the new atheists. Not trying to win many friends are they?

Do you consider it bigotry if someone thinks it is dumb of people to believe that god instead of humans wrote the bible?

I'm not talking about thinking, I'm talking about speech. You see, it's all in how you phrase things. Let's use examples:

"I find the notion, that the collection of religious texts known as "the Bible" were written by a divinity, or were transmitted by a divinity as revelations to certain humans to record, untenable and unbelievable, and I find theological and empirical arguments to that point unpersuasive."

vs

"People that believe that a magical sky beard fairy man wrote the bible are a bunch of drooling dumb-asses"

I actually believe the general understanding of Christians is that the Bible is merely divinely -inspired-, not written, nor even word for word transmitted. Which is why there was some... argument over canon early on, and in fact, still is in some quarters.

But hey, if Andy doesn't understand Christianity well enough to at least properly insult it, that's his problem.

Get off Andy's back and shut up. Maybe he was beat up by a bunch of Christian kids. I've seen those guys around, with their white shirts and their all around generally neat appearance and their avoidance of sweary words and their holier than me attitude just because they are.

The thing that got me about the story is the journalist kids walked out. Come on. Can't they stick it out and report on what they heard completely? No. They have to walk out and report on that. So Christian or not, offended or not, they're not very thorough reporters.

I didn't think they were reporters there to cover the event, so much as it was an event for reporters, like, to help them become journalists. I don't see how insulting them and swearing at them is helping them learn to be... ah, wait. Now I get it.

Only a short encyclical today, but these Klan meetings that you guys like to have really do reach the heights of tedious boredom. However, it is slightly amusing to see one bigot in a white hood attacking another bigot in a white hood for being a bigot.

There is a lot of interesting stuff in the KJV if your into literature. It was three days after Christ was baptized that He performed his first miracle (water into wine at the wedding at Cana). In that same book and chapter, Christ drove the merchants from the Temple, and told his desciples "Destroy this temple, and in three days I will raise it up."In Mark, this last claim was part of the evidence of blasphemy made against Jesus to the priests.

And vice versa, bigot. But if they criticize you, they are committing a "hate crime" and should be arrested.

"if there were any bullying in America from wacky Muslims engaging in Koran-motivated hate."

Which, of course, there are. Louis Farrakhan ring a bell? That leaves out asking how you or anyone would know, since the Muslims driving SUVs into crowds, or shooting up military bases, or planting car bombs in NYC, are always characterized as lone wolves and the only clue they're Muslim is the last name... until the confessions come out.

Which, of course, there are. Louis Farrakhan ring a bell? That leaves out asking how you or anyone would know, since the Muslims driving SUVs into crowds, or shooting up military bases, or planting car bombs in NYC, are always characterized as lone wolves and the only clue they're Muslim is the last name... until the confessions come out.

As noted above, this conversation is about schoolyard bullying, not international terrorism.

I guess it's possible that somewhere out there is some Muslims kids bullying other kids in the school yard for being infidels or eating pork or something. When anti-bullying activists in America are addressing actual issues of concern, Christian anti-gay bigotry is a real problem that needs to be dealt with, and I can't imagine the koran is even registering.

In Mark, this last claim was part of the evidence of blasphemy made against Jesus to the priests

"Blasphemy" is to take the name of the Lord in vain, or to otherwise speak falsely or contemptuously of His name, such as to equate yourself to Him. In the time of Jesus, to even say the name of God out loud was considered blasphemous, hence the usage of "the Lord" throughout the Old Testament and the abbreviation YHWH.

In the trial in Mark (14:61-62), we see this most explicitly, when in response to the question "Are you the Messiah, the son of the Blessed One?" Jesus answered, "I am."

This was not an ambiguous response. In saying this, Jesus was not merely saying "yes" to the question, He was purposely speaking aloud the Holy Name of God (Ex. 3:13-15), which is translated in English as "I am," and in that context, was applying it to Himself, i.e. saying that He was God. All of the rest, about seeing "the Son of Man seated at the right hand of the Power," etc. was just icing on the cake.

Jesus having so openly and blatently said God's name in their presence, and applying that name to Himself, the Sanhedrin really had no way to avoid the fundamental question -- either Jesus was guilty as charged, not guilty by reason of insanity, or He was telling the truth, that He is the Son of God and, thereby innocent of the charge.

Reading NSPA website, as a non-profit they are in the business of these trade show/conventions and selling memberships to schools. It seems little in academics and instead selling vacations as field trips.

Still wondering the choice of a sex columnist as the best choice. Couldn't they of had someone from the major networks or a reporter from the larger papers?

This entire conversation has devolved into a puerile spat since askewhatguy offered this bit of pearly wisdom:

Christian bigots should stop hiding behind the fables about magical sky beard fairy man and just own their prejudice or stop engaging in it.

It was downhill from there on. This is what happens when children are heard as well as seen.

To end on a lighter note I suggest that "ant-bullying" is preferable to being bullied by ants. As an ant-bullying advocate Dan Savage has my blessing, however he should get back the business of crushing the spirits of our would-be insect overlords and leave them kids alone.

Bender wrote:"Jesus having so openly and blatently said God's name in their presence, and applying that name to Himself, the Sanhedrin really had no way to avoid the fundamental question -- either Jesus was guilty as charged . . ."Interesting. I hadn't thought of that before. Connects to the "rebuild the temple in three days line". Condemned to death by men for being truthful.

Relatedly, our local high school recently had a dentist talk to students in a health class, delivering information about how best to care for your teeth.

My question is whether the school engages in viewpoint discrimination. Does it bring in other speakers who present other interpretations of dental health and hygeine? Have they invited anyone to speak on behalf of those who value shmearing chocolate on your teeth before going to sleep? I doubt it.

I do, but not as a short story. I first encountered that tale by way of its descendant "The Naked Jungle" a 1954 Paramount potboiler starring Charleton (Oh my Gawd) Heston and Eleanor Parker, an Eisenhower era hottie. I think I first saw it as one of those SFM Holiday Network presentations. I came across another version years later on the web, specifically an audio stream from an old time radio anthology series called "Suspense!" In that iteration Leiningen was played by the multi-talented William Conrad, who was tapped to play the District Commissioner (the pith helmet guy) in the film version.

Even the God of the entire Bible is behind the gay rights movement----and I'll prove it. (Although this paper focuses on lost persons in the "Northeastern Bermuda Triangle" outlined roughly by New York City, Montreal, and Boston, I'm sharing it with everyone everywhere.) You who identify with GBLT (no, not Gay Bacon Lettuce & Tomato!) already know about your own history. So for the unlearned I'll include some info on it, much of which is on the internet. Gay activist John McKellar has stated: "The major media are all nonstop advertisements for the gay lifestyle, so how far are they prepared to go in denying free speech to Christians, Muslims, and Jews?....No major world religion has ever accepted homosexual behavior. And if [gay] activists had any sense of history, they'd realize their own lifestyle is a symptom of an overurbanized, relativized culture heading into decadence." Thomas Jefferson revealed that in Virginia, "dismemberment" of the offensive sex organ was the penalty for sodomy, and he himself authored a bill penalyzing sodomy by castration. The same internet article, "Homosexuals in the Military" by David Barton, also stated that sodomy , homosexuality etc. were regarded as felonies in early America and were even punishable by death in New York, Connecticut, South Carolina, and Vermont! You GBLTs have traveled far. You are now helping to fulfill two big signs that Jesus said (in Luke 17) will characterize life on earth just before His return to it: "days of Noah" (physical violence) and "days of Lot" (your GBLT ancestors). Even the New York Times has expressed amazement over the suddenness and pushiness of today's campaign for legalizing same-sex marriage, and Prof. David M. Halperin wrote that "lesbian and gay studies scholars" have led the way in fighting against policies that "criminalize gay sex or limit access to abortions."

I said early on that the Bible's God is behind you GBLTs. Yes, He's behind you and even pushing you down the dead-end road you have insisted on taking. Several scary Bible passages show that God will actually "program" those whose motto seems to be "HELL-BOUND AND HAPPY!": "the Lord God...gave them up to desolation" (II Chron. 30:7); God "gave them up to uncleanness," "gave them up to vile affections," "gave them over to a reprobate mind" (Rom. 1:24,26,28); "God shall send them strong delusion" (II Thess. 2:11); and "he which is filthy, let him be filthy still" (Rev. 22:11). Now that you GBLTs have invented strange architecture (closets opening on to main streets instead of bedrooms!), have traded limp wrists for clenched fists, and are fighting for shame-sex marriage, I wonder if you will be happy when you've turned New York into New Yuck, Boston into Bah!-ston, and other places into Messychoose-its, Nude Hampshire, Vermin, and Cana-duh (where at least the maple leaves will be blushing!). And of course I should include Hell-A and San Fransissyco which, appropriately, are in Quake-ifornia! So what are you waiting for? Since you're bent on fulfilling the predicted end-time Noah/Lot days (your way of helping to make the Bible even more believable!), and since seemingly you'd rather discover the "wrathful Judge" side of Christ instead of His "merciful and loving and forgiving" side, can't you speed up your role and get it over with? You're holding up the true and everlasting peace that God wants to give to the whole world!

(You're free to reproduce and distribute this non-copyrighted paper everywhere including the internet. You're also free to use a different title with it, if you wish.)